4 ms·

"The current Hamas charter only calls for the destruction of Zionist Israel, not for Israel as a nation" This is gaslighting. There is no doubt that Hamas wan

"The current Hamas charter only calls for the destruction of Zionist Israel, not for Israel as a nation" This is gaslighting. There is no doubt that Hamas wants to kill all Israelis because we not only have the text of the charter, but we have their actions on October 7th and their subsequent statements. Israel does not occupy Gaza, they left Gaza in 2005, you can't just pretend like that did not happen, come on. Israel did not have a physical presence inside Gaza before this latest round of fighting, this is a fact and it's absurd to deny it.

runarberg 3y ago
I find it interesting that you are willing to assume intent on Hamas while Israel is literally on trial for intending to destroy Palestinians in Gaza as a group. Everything you say about Hamas can be equally applied to Israel, and it is exactly what South Africa does in its legal case for the ICJ.
- vasilipupkin 3y ago
  No, it can't equally be applied to Israel, just because South Africa does something, it doesn't follow that it's logical or correct. It can't equally be applied to Israel because Hamas attacked on October 7th and subsequently vowed to repeat these attacks. That is extremely relevant, you can't just ignore this fact.
- tptacek 3y ago
  It's manifestly untrue that Hamas and Israel are morally equivalent. Nobody would bother to bring Hamas before a trial in the Hague; virtually every western country, given the ability to aerosolize Hamas (and only Hamas) with thermobaric warheads, would do so with minimal ceremony. The October 7th attack was horrific even on the scale of 20th century atrocities; it may not be on the top 5, but it's on the leaderboard. The simple fact is that civilian casualties are not all equally and cannot simply be tallied. None of this is to say that what Israel is doing now doesn't constitute a series of war crimes for which Netanyahu and his administration might be imprisoned (if Israel doesn't get to him first). A conflict can be squarely complaint with jus ad bellum but prosecuted in a way that contravenes the laws of war and humanity.
  - runarberg 3y ago
    <del>You are right.</del><ins>I would argue</ins> Israel is much worse. Israel is a state actor with a state level budget, and a state level arsenal which includes nuclear weapons. The damage it can and does inflict is an order of magnitude worse than the horrors any terrorist organization could ever dream of inflicting. But unlike Hamas, Israel also has state level responsibilities, of which it is horrifically failing to uphold. We should judge Hamas as a terrorist organization, but we should also judge Israel as a state actor, and as such any moral failings of Israel is infinitely worse. > The simple fact is that civilian casualties are not all equally and cannot simply be tallied. If true the horrors of 75 years of colonization, occupation and apartheid should be weighted in. Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza are under constant threat of being shot at for opening a car gate, going down the wrong street, or simply for protecting their orchards from settlers. That said, atrocities and crimes against humanity should not be ranked in any order. They should all be prevented, and in the worst case scenario prosecuted. What my parent said was: “There is no doubt that Hamas wants to kill all Israelis because we not only have the text of the charter, but we have their actions on October 7th and their subsequent statements.” is the only thing I’m equating. The case against Israel at the ICJ is exploring whether it can be stated without a doubt that Israel intents (wants) to kill (or displace) all Palestinians in Gaza as a group. For this South Africa cites written and spoken statements by Israeli officials (written charter) but also its actions during the current conflict (hindering aid, destroying civil infrastructure, leveling residential neighborhoods, etc.) as well as also actions prior to Oct 7 of which this inferred intent only builds upon. My parent was assuming genocidal intent onto Hamas, all the while many states are doing the very same against Israel. My parent may be right, but if South Africa et.all are right, the results are an order of magnitude more horrific, by the very nature that the perpetrator is not a mere terrorist organization, but a state actor. --- EDIT: Removed an unnecessary name calling from post.
    - tptacek 3y ago
      I don't think you've made a case for Israel being worse here that doesn't rely on simply tallying up civilian deaths; in fact, your argument lowers the bar further for Hamas, by suggesting Israel has special obligations conferred by statehood. Together, this offers a mode of inquiry that would lead one to believe that virtually every industrialized country is far worse than every terrorist organization. If you have an argument that would be persuasive to someone who does not in fact believe that almost every country in the world is worse than Hamas, maybe there's a point in continuing to talk. Otherwise, it's fine that we disagree. While I have you, can you stop writing things to me like that "you are right" barb?

runarberg 3y ago

I find it interesting that you are willing to assume intent on Hamas while Israel is literally on trial for intending to destroy Palestinians in Gaza as a group. Everything you say about Hamas can be equally applied to Israel, and it is exactly what South Africa does in its legal case for the ICJ.

vasilipupkin 3y ago
No, it can't equally be applied to Israel, just because South Africa does something, it doesn't follow that it's logical or correct. It can't equally be applied to Israel because Hamas attacked on October 7th and subsequently vowed to repeat these attacks. That is extremely relevant, you can't just ignore this fact.
tptacek 3y ago
It's manifestly untrue that Hamas and Israel are morally equivalent. Nobody would bother to bring Hamas before a trial in the Hague; virtually every western country, given the ability to aerosolize Hamas (and only Hamas) with thermobaric warheads, would do so with minimal ceremony. The October 7th attack was horrific even on the scale of 20th century atrocities; it may not be on the top 5, but it's on the leaderboard. The simple fact is that civilian casualties are not all equally and cannot simply be tallied. None of this is to say that what Israel is doing now doesn't constitute a series of war crimes for which Netanyahu and his administration might be imprisoned (if Israel doesn't get to him first). A conflict can be squarely complaint with jus ad bellum but prosecuted in a way that contravenes the laws of war and humanity.
- runarberg 3y ago
  <del>You are right.</del><ins>I would argue</ins> Israel is much worse. Israel is a state actor with a state level budget, and a state level arsenal which includes nuclear weapons. The damage it can and does inflict is an order of magnitude worse than the horrors any terrorist organization could ever dream of inflicting. But unlike Hamas, Israel also has state level responsibilities, of which it is horrifically failing to uphold. We should judge Hamas as a terrorist organization, but we should also judge Israel as a state actor, and as such any moral failings of Israel is infinitely worse. > The simple fact is that civilian casualties are not all equally and cannot simply be tallied. If true the horrors of 75 years of colonization, occupation and apartheid should be weighted in. Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza are under constant threat of being shot at for opening a car gate, going down the wrong street, or simply for protecting their orchards from settlers. That said, atrocities and crimes against humanity should not be ranked in any order. They should all be prevented, and in the worst case scenario prosecuted. What my parent said was: “There is no doubt that Hamas wants to kill all Israelis because we not only have the text of the charter, but we have their actions on October 7th and their subsequent statements.” is the only thing I’m equating. The case against Israel at the ICJ is exploring whether it can be stated without a doubt that Israel intents (wants) to kill (or displace) all Palestinians in Gaza as a group. For this South Africa cites written and spoken statements by Israeli officials (written charter) but also its actions during the current conflict (hindering aid, destroying civil infrastructure, leveling residential neighborhoods, etc.) as well as also actions prior to Oct 7 of which this inferred intent only builds upon. My parent was assuming genocidal intent onto Hamas, all the while many states are doing the very same against Israel. My parent may be right, but if South Africa et.all are right, the results are an order of magnitude more horrific, by the very nature that the perpetrator is not a mere terrorist organization, but a state actor. --- EDIT: Removed an unnecessary name calling from post.
  - tptacek 3y ago
    I don't think you've made a case for Israel being worse here that doesn't rely on simply tallying up civilian deaths; in fact, your argument lowers the bar further for Hamas, by suggesting Israel has special obligations conferred by statehood. Together, this offers a mode of inquiry that would lead one to believe that virtually every industrialized country is far worse than every terrorist organization. If you have an argument that would be persuasive to someone who does not in fact believe that almost every country in the world is worse than Hamas, maybe there's a point in continuing to talk. Otherwise, it's fine that we disagree. While I have you, can you stop writing things to me like that "you are right" barb?